Taxi Driver Online

I am sure Paul's knowledge is far superior to my own, and worlds apart from your's.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

This particular argument has been going on for many years..... and telephones have been taken out of premises rather than go to court.... it would be interesting to know which firm was actually prosecuted.... It would only take a phone call to find out .... But I'm not sure I am that interested.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

ON 29 JUNE 09 a Sefton Private hire company called DELTA TAXI . were prosecuted .Funny paul did not tell you .

All Mr McLaughlin needs to do if he loses is start a telecomms firm, buy all his freephone sites off delta and rent em back to delta...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

IMO £4,500 in fines would be a drop in the ocean to a company the size of Delta. It's hardly what I'd consider a deterrent anyway

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Yes they have got a few bob, i wonder who was their man in court . Mr Button i wonder . Well he is the very best .


District judge Clancy has ruled, that previous case law has ruled that a free phones are exactly the same as a booking office .


I have read quite a few cases on here . I no about the Birmingham case you know, operators licence , vehicle licence ,driving licence, all have to be the same L A . But i have not read one about free-phones . Some one must know surely . Or is Judge Clancy Wrong .

There is a school of thought that the DJ is right, but there is also a school of thought that it can be got around by having direct lines, not freephones.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well as the brains of the forum Mr T , Captain cab, and Sussex, dont seem to know. I think Judge Clancy cited , Dittah and Another -v- Phillipps and

MURTAGH AND CARTER (T/A RUBERY REDNAL CARS) v BROMSGROVE DISTRICT COUNCIL
JUDGMENT-2: But then again .. Some one must know.

It appears to me that you are quite apt at doing your own digging so I'm sure if it's there you'll find it

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

@LAWTEL Judgement
C9300212 18/10/1999
- -----.- -- - -
J
(1) PATRICIA MURTAGH (2) JEAN CARTER (T/A RUBERY REDNAL CARS) v
BROMSGROVE DISTRICT COUNCIL (1999)
DC (Kennedy LJ V-P, Jowitt J) 15/10/99
LICENSING-LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES: DEDICATED PHONE LINES: SUPERMARKETS: WHETHER APPELLANTS OPERATING FROM WHERE CALLS MADE OR RECEIVED: WHETHER VEHICLE
AND DRIVERS REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED BY TWO CONTROLLED DISTRICTS
The appellants were not entitled to operate private hire vehicles which were not licensed by, nor driven hy
drivers licensed by, the council in the controlled district where the appellants operated.
Appeat by way of case stated from a decision of the magistrates' court convicting the appellants of offences relating to the use of private hire vehicles. The appellants, possessed operators licences granted by both Bromsgrove District Council and Birmingham City Council. The private hire vehicles and their drivers however were only licensed by Birmingham City Council. The appellants had a number of dedicated phone lines from supermarkets in the controlled district of Birmingham City Council which connected the caller directly to the appellant's office in Rubery, within the area of Brontsgrove District Council, and nowhere else. The appellants were charged with three offences coD1rary of S.46 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 of operating a vehicle as a private hire within a controlled district when the driver did not hold a current licence issued under S.51 of the Act. The appellants were also charged with knowingly operating the same vehicle as a private hire vehicle within a controlled district without there being in force a ClUTent licence for the vehicle issued under s.48 and s.46 of the: Act. It was claimed. That by accepting the booking in Rubery, via the dedicated telephone lines, the appellants were operating within the Bromsgrove controlled district and so the appellants' drivers and their vehicles needed to be licensed by both Bromsgrove District Council and Birmingham City Council. The appellant claimed that by reasons of the dedicated telephone lines in Birmingham they had made provision there for the invitation of bookings for a private hire vehicle and so were "operating" only within the Birmingham controlled district and accordingly the drivers and their vehicles did not need to be licensed by Bromsgrove District Council The magistrates concluded that the appellants were operating in the Bromsgrove controlled district and that the vehicles and their drivers had required licences from Bromsgrove District Council. Accordingly they convicted the Appellants of the offences.
HELD: (1) By virtue of lhe dedicated telephone lines In the Supermarkets 10 Ihe appellanrs oIIice In the Bromsgrove controlled district, the appellants operated from Bromsgrove. Although they held operators licences issued both by Birmingham City Council as well as Bromsgrove District Council, they were not entitled to operate private hire vehicles in the Bromsgrove controlled district which were not licensed by, or driven by drivers licensed by Bromsgrove District Council. That was so whether or not they also operated in the Birmingham controlled district.
(2) The 1976 Act should be reconsidered by the legislators as a matter of urgency since it was absurd that a person who operated in one area committed a criminal offence if he installed a dedicated line in a neighbouring area. It cannot have been what Parliament intended. If an operator was properly licensed in one area he should not have to have been licensed elsewhere.
Appeal dismissed.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

When this is appealed Delta will win.

_________________
IDFIMH

So the problem was not where the phone call was made but where it was answered.

_________________
Grandad,

I think in this case it was where the phone call was made, and the fact that it was answered in a different licensing district.

IMO the method of booking is irrelevant, all that matters is that the vehicle and driver carrying out the booking are licensed in the same area as where it was answered.

_________________
IDFIMH

The calls were made from Birmingham, the cars and drivers were licensed by Birmingham. The calls were answered in Bromsgrove.

Your reply is slightly contradictory. In the first paragraph you say about where the call was made and in the second paragraph you change to where the call was answered.

_________________
Grandad,

I have no idea if Delta, are even going to appeal. What baffles me is i think ,this could a really important case. Its not getting any publicity in the trade press. No one seems to know any thing about it and if they do for some reason, there saying FA. Even the facts of the case, i am not totally sure of .